Nicholas Meyer on Sherlock Holmes

In a recent online essay for the Los Angeles Review of Books, Nicholas Meyer writes about the current state of movie adaptations.  While he mentions several reinvented franchises, his article centers in on director Guy Ritchie’s recent Sherlock Holmes movies.  He suggests that Robert Downey, Jr.’s action hero interpretation is intended for moviegoers who suffer from Attention Deficit Disorder in a post-literate age, who care little about narrative coherence or remaining true to the source material.  While he accepts that “Downey’s Holmes is not completely implausible, everything that surrounds him is unrelated to the genuine Sherlock.” 

Nor, in his opinion, does it seem as if Downey’s Holmes is alone in diverging from the original Arthur Conan Doyle stories.  He mentions other actors who have played Holmes, including the “ineffably patriotic (and anachronistic)" Basil Rathbone, the “twitchily neurotic” Jeremy Brett, the "drug-addicted” Nicol Williamson, and “the modern dress version,” Benedict Cumberbatch.  Of these various adaptations, he writes, “I’ve almost never seen a Holmes movie I didn’t dislike.”  Although it’s difficult to be certain, given Meyers love of double negatives, I get the distinct impression that he’s not a big fan of most Sherlock Holmes adaptations.

While Nicholas Meyer is best known for his work on the Star Trek movies, including directing “Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan,” he also wrote three novels about Sherlock Holmes, the first of which came out in 1974, and reached the Bestseller lists.  The novel was called The Seven-Per-Cent Solution.  In the introduction, Meyer, writing as John Watson, explains that the Sherlock Holmes stories “The Final Conflict” and “The Empty House” were fabrications, and four more were “forged drivel.”  He then goes on to tell a story about a Sherlock Holmes so under the influence of cocaine that he can no longer discern the real world from fantasy.  Watson tricks (outwits) Holmes into traveling to Austria, where he convinces Holmes to accept psychoanalysis and hypnotherapy from none other than Sigmund Freud.  When clues turn up which suggest that not all of Holmes’ suspicions may have originated from his addiction to cocaine, Freud joins forces with Holmes and Watson, and the three embark on an exhilarating adventure.

While I’ve not read Meyer’s novel, I recently watched the movie version of his book, which was directed by Herbert Ross.  At first, I found it hard to immerse myself in the story.  Of all the fictional characters in whose judgment I’ve been taught to trust, surely Sherlock Holmes would reside at the top of the list.  Also, I found the tone of the movie rather uneven, as if the director never decided whether he was making a comedy or a drama.  I gather that the revelation at the end of the movie, which casts an entirely different slant on Holmes' relationship with Moriarty, differs from Meyer’s novel. Ross also diverges from tradition by hiring a light-haired Nicol Williamson to play Meyer's "drug-addicted" Holmes, and his version, like Robert Downey, Jr's portrayal in the recent Guy Ritchie movies, seems more interested in women than the Holmes of Doyle's source material or most adaptations.  But it's unfair to compare a novel with a movie adaptation, as the two are entirely different art forms.  With a movie, it's the director's vision that ends up on screen, regardless of what's in the original novel, or who wrote the screenplay.  Personally, I enjoyed Ross' movie, even if I found it difficult to square this version of Sherlock Holmes with the other portrayals I've enjoyed. Nevertheless, I find the reported differences between the book and the film ironic, as Nicholas Meyer wrote the screenplay.  

Perhaps Nicholas Meyer isn’t responsible for many of the ways that the film differed from his novel.  But I do find it interesting that he complains about how other people are changing, adapting, and reinterpreting Arthur Conan Doyle’s character, when he begins his novel by stating that the author didn’t write some of the original stories: in other words, that they weren't true Sherlock Holmes stories. But then, what do I know?  I suffer from Attention Deficit Disorder, remember? And since I don't care about...um, let's see, I was...no, sorry, it's just gone, vanished. Sorry.

Does anyone remember what I was talking about?

Dragon Dave

Related Internet Links

Nicholas Meyer on Sherlock Holmes

http://lareviewofbooks.org/article.php?type=&id=654&fulltext=1&media=#article-text-cutpoint

Sherlock Holmes: The New Bond

I fell in love with the character of James Bond through the movie version of “The Spy Who Loved Me.”  Although I went on to read Ian Fleming’s work, as well as that of John Gardner, it was the movie version of Bond that enthralled me.  Broccoli and company portrayed Bond as an uncompromising and incorruptible agent for good.  With the exception of “License to Kill,” he fought for others, never for himself.  In a world full of evil, he served not just Queen and country, but the entire world.

It came as a disappointment, therefore, when Broccoli and Wilson decided to reshape Bond, beginning with their 2006 version of “Casino Royale.”  Gone were all the aspects of Bond that I had so enjoyed: the character of Q, along with his ingenious gadgets; the light-hearted humor that kept the action from growing too intense; and the evil villain whose dreams of megalomania threatened us all.  Instead, influenced by recent action movies such as the Jason Bourne trilogy, Bond grew darker, grittier, more self-involved.  In an effort to portray not the James Bond they had created, but instead the younger man lacking all the qualities he will eventually acquire and hone, this Bond took on smaller villains, thus making the storylines less compelling.  The villain of Casino Royale is not intent upon ruling the world through an organization such as SPECTRE.  He does not plot to destroy the existing order by provoking a nuclear war between two great superpowers.  Instead, he is an independent financier who plays the market and loses, and hence must recoup the money he has lost before his investors come looking for him.

In “Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows,” England and Europe are beset by a series of unexplained murders, bombings, and terrorist acts.  Lacking someone to blame, the nations rage at each other.  Sherlock Holmes analyzes these seemingly unrelated acts of violence and determines that Professor Moriarty is responsible.  He has yet to deduce Moriarty’s motive, or uncover sufficient proof with which the police can arrest the professor.  As he evades attempts on his life, Holmes searches for clues to Moriarty’s overall plans, as well as the means to dismantle the man’s worldwide operation.  No world leaders will believe that Moriarty is a villain: he seems indispensible to each country’s government.  So, aided only by Dr. Watson, a band of gypsies, and his inventiveness and persistence, Holmes must defeat Moriarty before the man can unleash his evil schemes.

His quest takes him to France, Germany, and Switzerland.  Moriarty unleashes his trained killers and ingenious war machines upon Holmes, Watson, and the gypsies.  These two geniuses will stretch their intelligence to the utmost as each seeks to outdo the other.  Moriarty thinks only of himself: he seeks to profit by unleashing mayhem and destruction.  He fears the genius of others, who would take away all that he seeks to acquire.  In comparison, Holmes fights for others: he seeks no personal gain.  He celebrates the genius of others, rather than feeling threatened by their superior intellects.  Such selflessness allows him to put his own life in danger again and again; he would willingly sacrifice his own life to end the threat Moriarty poses. 

This new Sherlock Holmes exhibits all the panache and light-hearted humor that James Bond once exuded.  He possesses Q’s inventiveness, and creates ingenious disguises and gadgets that protect him despite all that the villain threatens him with.  His charm and charisma draw beautiful women to his side.  He needs no research department; with the encyclopedic knowledge he has accumulated, he pieces together the disparate clues.  Years of dedication and practice have honed his muscles and reflexes: he defends himself equally well with any weapon, or just his bare hands.  He exhibits vivacity, grace, and style.  He appreciates mankind’s newest creations and the artistic work of the old masters.  He is uncompromising and incorruptible.  He is Bond.

If Broccoli and Wilson choose to focus upon a less-capable and refined protagonist rather than the hero they created, that is their right.  But I am grateful to director Guy Ritchie, and everyone behind “Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows,” for bringing to the screen a hero who epitomizes the virtues that James Bond once exemplified.  For this world has plenty of detectives who can piece together seemingly random events to solve their puzzles.  This world has enough faceless spies.  We are awash in stories about protagonists who count the cost to themselves as they battle their opponents.  This new Sherlock Holmes fights not for personal glory or revenge, not for money or respectability.  Thus, he represents the hero we all need, and the ideal we yearn to become.  He is order.  He is justice.  Who is he?

“The name’s Holmes.  Sherlock Holmes.”

Related Dragon Cache entries

Matt Bowles: Renaissance Man

What Drives Us

In Search of Greatness

Avluela’s Sacrifice